Sola Scriptura Debate: Is The Protestant 66 Book Bible The Ultimate Rule Of Faith?

Hello everyone and welcome to this special live stream. My name is Jacob Hansen. I'm the host of thoughtful faith and today we're going to be hosting a special debate uh on the subject of solos scriptura.

Now before we get into the actual debate and introduce the debaters, I just want to make people understand why this is such an important discussion. Uh, at first glance, this debate may seem like it's about some sort of a vague theological subject, this solar scriptura, but it actually gets to the heart of one of the biggest questions in all of Christianity. How does God intend to guide his church?

If the Protestant doctrine of solos scriptura is true, then the Bible alone is the final and sufficient authority for Christian faith and claims of modern prophets and ongoing revelation and additional scripture are fundamentally mistaken. But if God has worked and continues to work through living prophets and continuing revelation, then restricting his authority to a closed cannon raises serious questions.

So here is the thesis of today's debate. The Bible, meaning the Protestant 66 book canon, is the ultimate rule of faith to which all other sources of faith are to be tested or examined by to derive doctrinal truth.

So in this debate, we'll have two people debating this and I want to introduce them now. We have affirming this thesis, Kelly Powers. Kelly has been a born again uh and Kelly Powers is a Protestant and he has been a born again Christian since 1977 and has been actively involved in Christian apologetics, evangelism and ministry since the early 1990s. He also holds an advanced bachelor's degree in apologetics and evangelism and is passionate about defending the Christian faith, equipping believers, and proclaiming the gospel. Kelly is the host of the YouTube channel Berean Perspective and also is the creator of Street Talk with Kelly Powers where he conducts real life conversations and street interviews focused on sharing the message of Jesus Christ.

On the other side, we have the one challenging this thesis is Robert Boland. Robert Boland is a Latter-day Saint who is an apologist and independent research researcher who lives in Southwest Ireland. He holds degrees in theology and anthropology from the Pontipical University of Ireland at Mayouth. He has previously worked as a senior research analyst for the BH Roberts Foundation, Mormoner and Scripture Central, and he is the propri proprietor of scriptural of the Scriptural Mormonism blog and podcast. His future plans include authoring a monograph on the development of early Latter-day Saint Christology and another on the history and development of the atom god theory.

Gentlemen, welcome to the debate.

>> Thanks for having me.

>> Yes, thank you very much.

>> Excellent. All right. So, as we go into this debate, I just want to let the audience know the format that we're going to have today. The format is going to be first a 20-minute opening statement uh first from the affirmative by Kelly. Then, uh Robert will give his opening statement of 20 minutes. After that, they will have 10 minutes to respond to one another's opening statements. After that, we will have 20-minute cross-examination rounds where each will get 20 minutes to cross-examine the other and then the debate will finish with five minute closing statements. Um, I will act as the moderator um to ensure things stay on track and uh to keep track of the time. So, uh we're going to get started here. Let me get the timer ready. I won't begin the timer, by the way, Kelly, until you uh begin talking. But are there any uh questions or anything before we we get started with this?

>> I just realized I don't have anything to write notes when he's doing his opening. Can I get one minute to go to a piece of paper and

>> Yeah. Yeah, absolutely.

>> I'll be right back.

>> Go ahead and get yourself a piece of paper.

>> Be right back.

>> Not a problem. Um, as we wait here for that, uh, I just I guess I'll kind of give people a little bit of an understanding of some of the debate format here. When it comes specifically to the cross- examination, um, cross-examinations can often be run in different ways. I personally prefer a cross-examination that focuses the debaters on asking one another or where the cross-examiner is focusing on asking questions rather than making statements or going off off topic. And I I tend to like to keep it to that so that both sid so that it is a real cross-examination rather than uh a a performance uh where where the questions aren't the central focus of the cross- examination period. So we will be doing that. Um, let me see if there's anything else on here. Kelly, you're back.

>> Yeah, thank you. Sorry. Sorry about that. Thank you.

>> Not a problem at all. All right. Well, I have my clock ready. I'm setting it for 20 minutes. Um, are you ready, Kelly?

>> Yeah. And I guess let's put the slides up, I guess, whenever you're ready.

>> Yeah. You want me to put the slides up now?

>> Yeah, that'd be for my opening. Yeah.

>> Perfect. Awesome. I'm going to go ahead and I will give you a one minute warning. So when you want to begin uh I'll start the timer.

>> All right. All right. I'll start. Thank you everybody for being here. I am glad to be here for this uh debate with Robert. Thank you Jacob for hosting. As you heard, the debate thesis is that the Bible, the Protestant 66 books is the ultimate rule of faith to which all sources, all other sources of faith are to be tested and examined to derive doctrinal truth. And I think that's the big focus for me today is doctrinal truth. Um, things that I'm going to go through today, what is the Bible? Why doesn't the LDS, meaning Latter Saints, except the Joseph Smith translation? And I'm going to bring that up in a little bit. Why not the Catholic Church's Bible, the 73 books? Why not the Orthodox Church's 76 to88 books they have? I'm going to talk about what solosura means or solos scriptor means and what it doesn't mean. How do we test for doctrinal truth? Most importantly for me is why should I believe Joseph Smith or you believe him? And some questions that will need to be answered.

Now, there's some common ground. The Bible consists of 66 books, 39 of the Old Testament, 27 the New Testament. Now, the early church recognized the 27 books. They recognized this by their apostilhip, teachings, dating, and inspiration. The early church fathers actually quoted from all of the New Testament books that we have tens of thousands of times. estimated over 36,000 citations which means the same 27 books that we have in the New Testament was considered inspired and authoritative for teaching and doctrine early on before those in councils. The Old Testament books which were known as the Hebrew scriptures or the Tanakh has three sections. The Torah, the prophets and the writings. For Jewish people, their canon consisted of 22 books known as the ancient tradition or 24 modern tradition. Both have the exact books that are combined just depending upon which how it's word of the tradition. The Hebrew scriptures consist of the same books as the 20 or the 39 that are in the Protestant Old Testament. Now the Jewish way of looking at the Old Testament is simply the prophets, the writings and um uh the Torah. So we see this here from my Jewish learning and also Josephus Flavius. This is how the Old Testament cannon would have been understood. What is interesting is also according to a couple of different links here from the LDS website, the Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, the books were divided into three groups. The law, the prophets, and the writings. See Luke 24:44. That's from one source from Bible dictionary LDS.org. Another one down at the bottom here talks about anciently the books of the Old Testament were grouped into three main sections. The law, the prophets, and reign. Now why that's important for me is because this establishes that Larry Saints and myself we actually have the same 66 books. We have both the same 60 books. Now I recognize the Book of Mormon program doctrine of these are additional books that come later. But when it comes to the Bible we have the same thing. The official which I guess all of you guys know who majority are going to be Larry Saints here. The official translation is the King James Bible for Larry Saints. So we have this common ground.

Now I do not believe the Bible is complete because of a church council declared it to be complete. I believe the Bible is complete because God inspired a specific prophetic and apostolic writings and the church recognized these writings early on. I believe the burden of proof is on anyone claiming additional scripture to demonstrate that's from God. That could be the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, Pearl Great Price, Joseph Smith History. We could get into the Catholic Bible. They have 73 books total. Orthodox Bible has 76 up to 88 depending upon which Orthodox Church you're talking about. Another interesting point here is the reorganized Latterday Saints who are also considered Mormons. They actually do not believe that the Pearl Great Price and Joseph Smith history are inspired. They accept the Joseph Smith translation as inspired and ironically they have 165 sections in their doctrine and covenants compared to 138 for Latter Saints. They also use a different translation as well for their main book for a Bible, the New Revised Standard Version updated edition, which actually has 18 more Old Testament books in the Old Testament. Both are Mormons, but why the differences?

Now what does soloscura mean? Well, during the time of the prophets and the apostles, they had the written word, right? And they also had the spoken word. That was a different era, different time. I believe now when we're talking about today in our modern day talking about solosura, solosqura is the doctrine or the teaching that the holy scriptures, the bible alone is the only infallible. It doesn't mean that we have other sources we can't go to or learn from, but is the ultimate only afallible scripture that we can rely upon for Christians today. Soloscriptor does not mean solo scriptor meaning the Bible alone. That's a misconception. We can go to outside sources. We can look at other things to verify history and truth. But if we're going to be reading church fathers, creeds, councils, whatever it may be, I believe ultimately to test anything, whether it's a revelation or someone claiming something, it must come from scripture. Many scriptures in the Bible Jesus talked to taught his disciples. Go make disciples of all nations. teach them to observe what I've commanded you. The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets in Christ Jesus being the cornerstone. We're told to study the scriptures to accurately represent what the scriptures teach. We're told in scripture that the scriptures are profitable for doctrine for proof, correction, train, and righteousness. So, we have a blueprint, a standard to go to. That's what I believe we look talking about today. We see scripture also says that the Holy Spirit 1 John 2:27 the Holy Spirit leads and guide us. But ultimately like my channel Ban Perspective Acts 17 I believe is a very simple verse that demonstrates the importance of scripture as being the authority in these matters. People in Berea these Jewish people they were listening to Paul and Silas. Paul and Silas were teaching scripture but these people didn't just assume the apostles to be true. what they do. They went to scripture to see whether these things were.

So, one of the things that in my years of being a born again Christian, when I first got into apologetics back in the early 1990s, when I was looking into Mormonism, Jo or um Latter Saints, one of the things I'm being told is Joseph Smith is claiming there was this great apostasy, there was a need of this restoration, the fullness of the gospel. And he's told by both this is his claim that God the father and Jesus appeared to him. Now I do believe in the supernatural but why should I believe Joseph Smith testimony claiming that these that all the churches were wrong all their creeds were an abomination. All their professors were corrupt. They all teach commandments to men. Why should I believe Joseph Smith as being a true prophet? Where's the evidence of his claims for these for these statements?

Now, this one will hit a little bit harder here. This is talking pre-1978. Some of you might not know, maybe you're not old enough, I don't know, maybe older, I don't know. Before 1978 in the LDS church, many of you are LDS listening. in the teachings from the time of Cain till up till 19 1978 anybody who was of dark skin negro black Ethiopian whatever nobody according to the book of Abraham in inside the prograde price could have what's called the priesthood authority you can see at the bottom 127 why is that of interest well according to different sources here's one for Milton Hunter for the pro great price the greatest curse that came upon Kanan descendants was that they were cursed pertaining to the priesthood. Their entire lineage could not have the priesthood. Joseph Smith identified the Negroes as the descendants of Cain. Therefore, it is due to the teachings of the Pearl great price and the prophet Joseph Smith and other early leaders of the church that the negro today is barred from the priesthood. Same thing with encyclopedia of Mormonism. Now, at the bottom, uh Bruce McConi, a former uh Larry St. Prophet. He said, "Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood. Under no circumstances can they hold this delegation authority from the Almighty."

Well, this is interesting because in the Book of Mormon in Second Nephi chapter 3, as you guys would rightly know, the claim is that Joseph Smith is from the lineage of someone named Joseph and Nassa in the Old Testament in the Bible. Joseph and Nassa in Genesis 41. Joseph and Nassan had two children, Ephraim and Manasseh. Why this is of interest is because ASA according to Hugh Nibbli and some of you may know who Hugh Nibbi is. He's a considered a great LDS scholar in one of his lectures at BYU back in 1988 to99 1988 to 1990. He said the following. Joseph married Asa who was the daughter of a high priest of Halopolis direct descendant of Ham. Asa was a direct descendant of Ham. He went on to say Lehi was a son of Manasseh who was half Egyptian. His mother was Asa who was of the blood of Ham a pure Egyptian. She had to be. Her father was the priest of Helpopoulos was a son of Manasseh whose twin brother was Ephraim. We claim we are descended from him. Asa was an Egyptian woman. Now why is that relevant? Well, according to Joseph Fielding Smith, the 10th president, he said, quote, "If Abraham, Joseph, Moses had negro wives, their descendants would have been denied the priesthood according to the word of the Lord to Abraham." And it also says that Joseph Smith would have denied this because he was related to Joseph. So why that's relevant is because this is the claim of the LDS church is to have this Melchus priesthood authority that was lost that's now been restored. But yet, according to LDS sources in standard works, Joseph Smith could have never had it.

Now, a couple other interesting things here about the Melk priesthood in the Old Testament. There's only two places, at least in the Bible. Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 that Melkisedc is mentioned. There's an actual person known as the Melkisedc in the Old Testament, and there's a prophecy in Psalm 110 pertaining to the coming Messiah. Now, I'd like to know where in the Old Testament is it ever taught that anyone other than what we read in Genesis 14 had the Melch, the priesthood authority. Where was it taught? Where was it passed on to? And secondly, where do we see this in the New Testament? We see according to the New Testament, Jesus was designated having the Melk priesthood after his resurrection. And it states that he has an untransferable priesthood. The reason why this is important because this is the LDS claim to restore the fullness of the gospel that was lost when the apostles died what's called the great apostasy. If that is true, where is the evidence for this in the Bible?

Now, years ago, I was told that I need to pray about the Book of Mormon when I was back in my early 1990s learning about different religions, different cults. Um well sorry I didn't mean to say that offensively in that way but learned about different groups I came across friends that I grew up in Las Vegas had many friends that were Larry saints and was told about Book of Mormon. So I was told I need to pray about it and this comes from of course you guys would know Moroni 10:es 3-5 right the question is is this biblical is praying about a book a realer's book biblical praying about Jose Smith the biblical now I do believe the Bible does tell us to pray obviously this is what J uh Joseph Smith believed James 15 he went the Bible right his foundation was scripture actually but the thing here is is what happens does the Bible give ways to know if the Book of Mormon is true or if judgment is true or false pos true or false prophet.

Now, historically, there are many non-Christian scholars, non-Christian archaeologists, non-Christian historians that can testify and vouch for many things that are in the Bible. They may not agree. Say for example Bartman, he may not agree with many things that are the supernatural in the Bible, but many things historically, people, places, and events have been confirmed over the years. My question is, is there a single non keyword non LDS historian, scholar, archaeologist that can testify to the things that are in the Book of Mormon that are the claims that are there? I'd be curious. I haven't found any yet.

Now, after examining the Mormon church, I believe the evidence that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet. What about the prayer, though? And I actually do mean what I'm about to say even though I've been accused differently. I did pray years ago in the early 1990s because I had many friends that were Latter Day Saints and I was I I was became a Christian at a young age. I wanted to know I really did pray. Now in my praying though when I was asking the Lord this may not sit well with you guys. I believe when God answered me because I believe God did answer me. I was told no. Joseph Smith is not a true prophet. I was told no, the Book of Mormon is not true. It's not another testament with what the Bible would actually teach. It's it's a not inspired. So if I did pray that, but yet God told me these things are not so. If you have a testimony that you claim says this is true, I have a testimony that says God told me no. What do we do now? And this takes us back to solosqura. There has to be a standard whether we're talking to Jehovah witnesses, Roman Catholics, Muslims, atheists, whoever it may be, even amongst myself within within the Protestant denominations, right? There has to be a standard. Whether your pastor says whatever, a prophet says such and such or whatever it may be, there has to be a standard.

So, in this conversation, I have some questions that I think would like to be answered. Maybe not get to all of them, but these are questions I like to ask anyway. Why don't Mormons, and I when I say this, I don't mean to be rude, okay? Why don't Mormons believe what the Bible actually teaches about examining the scriptures to know doctrinal truth and to know if someone is teaching false doctrine? Why does the LDS church have the same 66 cannon as Protestants? If there's a problem with us, why do they have the same one? According to the Book of Mormon, there were doctrines that were moved from the Bible, right? Where is the evidence for this claim? Why should anyone believe the Book of Mormon? Doctrine, Covenants, Progate, Christ, Joseph Smith are inspired writings. What is the evidence for these claims? Why does the reorganized Larry saints reject the pearl great price in Joseph Smith history but yet the Larry saints believe those are inspired? Why does the Larry Saint church not accept the Joseph Smith translation like the reorganized Latter Saints? Joseph Smith claimed to got divine guidance and it was completed. It was completed in 1833. Yet why is that not accepted in the Latter Saint Church? Why does the latter saint church latter day church accept 73 books like the Catholics or 76 81 or up to 88 like the Orthodox or 84 books like what the Arielistas uh church does? Why should I believe Joseph Smith's testimony is being true when it goes against the Bible? What do I mean by that? Because I believe the Bible teaches that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. I believe that Jesus's promises were true that he would be with us to the very end. The Holy Spirit would lead and guide us. Where does the Bible teach that there would be a complete following away and there would be a need of this restored Melkaz priest authority to bring back the gospel on this earth. Where is the evidence for these claims? From Cain and on according to LDS, the priesthood was denied for blacks but then changed in 1978. What about all the prophets and apostles teachings before 1978? Latter saints. My question is how can Joseph be a true prophet since he is in the lineage of Ephraim which according to the book of Abraham he could not have been because he would have been to the authority. Where is the Melchisedc priesthood authority taught for people to have in the Old Testament except for one person in Genesis 14? Where in the New Testament is this not for Jesus alone? If I pray about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith and God tells me the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith are false, how am I to believe the LDS churches to be true?

So as I conclude here, I recognize some things. We have different testimonies, different experiences. But the Bible also warns about there's going to be spiritual force in this world deceiving people with false experiences, dreams, visions, signs, and wonders. There are going to be false prophets and false apostles. Therefore, what I believe our weapon of warfare is prayer of course and the scriptures which I believe are the blueprint to give us the discernment to know what is true and what is false. Therefore, soloscura is the ultimate authority for testing doctrinal truth today to know whether something is true or false. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Kelly. Let's go ahead and switch things up here. Robert, uh, did you say that you had some some slides you you want to present as well, Robert? Do you want to share those?

>> Yes.

>> Excellent. Um, and as you're pulling those up, I just want to remind those who are just joining us, the thesis of tonight's debate or today's debate is the Bible is the ultimate rule of faith to which all other sources of faith are to be tested or examined by to derive doctrinal truth. So, that is the subject we are debating. Um, let me see here. Robert, I have yours up here on screen. Let me get the timer ready. All right. And Robert, when you begin speaking, I will start the time.

>> Thank you. Just I will start my timer now. Soul scripture is a tradition of men, a case against the formal doctrine of Protestantism. Why soul scripture is an exogetical impossibility? Evangelical James White admits, quote, Protestants do not assert that soul scripture is a valid concept in times of revelation. How could it be since the rule of faith to wish of pints was at the very time coming into being? By this admission, White has unwittly proven that scripture does not teach sole scriptura. For it cannot be a valid concept in times of revelation, how can scripture teach such a doctrine since scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was still being produced. Scripture cannot contradict itself. And since the first century Christian and a 21st century person cannot extract different interpretations from the same verse. Thus, whatever was true about scripture then must also be true today. If the first Christians did not and could not extract solar from scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses cannot in principle be teaching solar and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching either. As I note for solar scripture to be operative as the rule of faith there must first be tota scriptura. Senus correctly notes correct uh quote the issue is can a scripture one of that scripture ease have a different interpretation today than it did in the first century an interpretation that is diametrically opposed in one time over against another as a note a person who claims solos scripture is biblical to be consistent will have to say yes and functionally reject the historical grammatical method of ex Jesus now one may respond by urga a principle may be true even if it is not quote unquote active in the time the text has been written an analogy would be a constitution of a country coming into full force when it is completed and disseminated or a building once construction has been completed and the scaffolding here apostolic oral tradition and other sources is removed. However, such analogies beg several questions such as one formal sufficiency of the Bible to Allah to descriptor of provinism the Bible composing the 66 books of the proin canon and three the sessation of special republic revelation at the end of the first century. Such analogies also fail. For example, the pros and bible nowhere selfidentifies the way a constitution would. The essential building blocks of solos scriptura. The defender of solos scriptura even if they are successful at showing the bible represents a totality written revelation. And by the way for this ar uh debate I'm just going to concede Mormonism is false you know um because the burden is actually on the pro not the latter day saint. They still have to show that the bible is formally sufficient and the sole infallible rule of faith. Ultimately until they can do such their argument simply the banks across this fight among others consider some of the essential building blocks of soul scripture and my opponent must prove my ex Jesus in the Bible to even stand a chance of winning this debate. The sessation especially republic revelation of the datalas apostle which alone is not sufficient to prove the pros and case. For instance both Roman Catholicism and eastern orthodoxy agree with this but they hold to either part and part or material sufficiency perspectives not formal sufficiency. That the oral inspired revelation would be retired and their contents be found exhaustively in the biblical texts. That the category of true scripture is one to one equivalent or is exhausted by the 66 books of the pros and canon the Bible. And the Bible as defined by the 66 books of the pros and cannon is formally sufficient and the final court of appeal.

Now let's address the common the word of God equals the Bible fallacy. It is common for some defenders of solar to argue that the word of God and similar occursions are one to one equivalent to the Bible or at least in scripture aid revelation. However, there are many instances where the word of God and similar concepts and phrases are not equivalent to in scripture aid revelation, let alone the Bible. In fact, and this is uncontested, the word of God is never the present Bible anywhere in the Bible. Examples include Luke 3 2:3, 4:44, 5:1, 8:11-15, Acts 4:31, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, and Hebrews 11:3. 1 Thessalonians 2:13, speaking of oral, not written, Revelation, reads thusly, quote, "For this cause also thank God without ceasing, because when you receive the word of God, which you heard of us, you received it." Thus the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God which effectively works also in you that believe. Note of Benny. Nowhere does the New Testament teach that these oral inspired revelations were to be retired after the completion of New Testament and or one can find the entire content thereof in the New Testament texts. For the Pro to win this debate, they must show it, not merely assert such. An example of a binding authoritative tradition that is partly word of God, but was never part of the Bible. The lurggical reforms of King Hezekiah and Josiah. 2 Chronicles 29:35 quote and he that is King Hezekiah said the Levites in the house of the Lord with symbols with sulties and harps according to the command of David and of G the king the prophet for so was the command of the Lord by his prophets compared to Chronicles 35:4 set King Josiah's reform quote and prepare yourselves by the houses of your fathers after your courses according to writ of David king of Israel and according to writ of Solomon his son with respect to these texts we learn the following one David Gad and Natan were dead for about 250 years at this point however Two, they passed on a command from the Lord which was prescribed by God's prophets and how worship is be conducted in the temple. Harley issued the worship of God as a central issue in theology. Eg. God killing native and abu for an authorized lurggical worship in Leviticus 10 and three. Such a prescription and commandment is found nowhere else in the Bible. Yet can Hezekiah Josiah clearly understood them to be asitative and binding as in scripture revelation. Catholic Gregory Crebel correctly noted quote the fact that these words from God were never included in the Old Testament cannon had absolutely none to do with the matter. These words from God not preserved in scriptures were consult and applied authoritaratively by the reformers spoken of in two chronicles. The passages in two chronicles are very clear and straightforward reputations of solos scriptura as one defender of solos scriptor wrote against the word of God equals the Bible apologetic W. Gary Crarampton by scripture loan page 156 which was endorsed by the late Robert L. Raymond who was a heavy hitter in reformed theological circles. Quote, "There's a difference between the word of God, which is eternal, Psalm 119 89, 152, and 160, and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the word of God written. If one were destroy one paper Bible or all paper Bibles, he would not destroy the eternal word of God." One such example is given in Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write his words in book of the people. Wicked King Yahai came not comfortable with what had been written, had the written word destroyed. God told the prophet to write word down again. The king had destroyed the written word. We cannot destroy God's word. God's word is eternal propositions that find expression in the written statements.

The council of Jerusalem in Acts chapter 15, the use of scripture continuing revelation in the binding inherent authority of the church. Now all people in the broad Christian spectrum would claim that they have personal existential knowledge of the truth of the quote unquote gospel in the quote in quote scriptures however so defined. The issue however is not existential knowledge but binding or normative authority. This contrast with the historic Proton view that privileges the conscience of the individual believer notwithstanding it being negatively affected by the noetic effects of fall even after regeneration. For example, Charles Halj when discussing the individual Christians interpretation of scripture were respected local and global church wrote quote what Protestants deny in this subject is that Christ has appointed any officer or a class of officers in his church to whose interpretation of scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirming he is he has made obligatory upon every man the source the scriptures for himself and to determine on his own discretion what require him to believe and to do in this light the pro is only ultimately obligated to asend to any given doctrine if and only if he judges it be quote unquote biblical in other words his conscience plays the ultimate normative role to say that some faculty functions in an ultimate sense is to say that one is bound or obligated to send to the judgments of that faculty hear one's conscience without any acceptance now in acts 15:ES 13 to 17 James appeals to Amos 9112 in the Septuent to support the taking of the gospel directing the Gentiles and the sessation of circumcision in the requirements during the council of Jerusalem. However, when one reads Amos 9112 in its context, nothing is said about the sessation of requirement of circumcision. Furthermore, James is relied upon the subtitan's obvious translation mistakes admitted as we will see even by conservative pros and scholars. Amos 9:11-12 from the lexom English subusian quote on that day will raise up the tent of David that has fallen and will rebuild its things that have fallen and raise up its things that have been destroyed and it will rebuild it just as the days of the age so the remnant of the people and all the nations upon whom my name was invoked upon them will search for me says the Lord who's making these things not 11:12 is actually solid but the sessation of circumcision speaking only the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David Hebrew so which was interpreted to mean that the influx of gentile converts in the church fulfill the text Acts 15 16 to1 18 the hermenetical lens if you will that helped James Ky's reading was not scripture alone but Peter's experiences and perception of then modern revelation as recounted in verses 7 to11 lutan scholar Dean went wrote quote an interesting and informative usage of Amos 9112 occurs in Acts 15 16-1 17 first we shall note that James' interpretation and application of this passage rests squarely on the septusian translation moreover the septusian translation as we noted earlier changes the sense of the maseretic text and after knowing the deficiency of the Greek text with respect to the Hebrew wrote quote the theological the theological significance of this citation by James should not be overlooked. It reveals a freedom on the part of the New Testament church both regarding the form of the text and with regard to its application. David Main quote the Carson which must be considered ease is James' use of Amos 9112 contrary to its intended meaning specifically because he used it based on the pun a faulty translation. James' argument is that the experimental evidence may be accepted because it is confirmed by scripture. Lutheran Mikuel Selback quote Amos chapter 9 is also interesting as it is directly cited in the New Testament here and its use by the apostle James is clearly contingent on the universalist tendency in verse 12 as found in the subtent. Though this passage is witnessed to by both the New Testament subtent, it is lacking in the messetic text and I will note it's also missing in Kumran the Damascus document and for Q florelium as well which rather discusses natural Israel's takeover of the remnant of Edom. So question to ask yourself if you're present could one argue as many pros and theologians do that believers have a right to appeal to the internal form of conscience and disagree with the council's decree and James' interpretation of Amos 9:11 the 12 the so-called brain test. I will note my rebuttal. I will be addressing briefly Acts 17 and the Burian of course if no why not Acts 15 shows the church can immediately bind the conscience of believers due to its god-given authority and so act as a rule of faith regular feed that is that which of its own say so is alone sufficient to bind us to what we ought to ascent to as the doctrine of Christ not Benny the right the private interpretation not private interpretation simplicity is a constitutive element of soul scripture if it falls so does soul scriptor Now some may respond but acts 15 was set in a time of public revelation. One the protestant will have to go outside the bible and claim public revelation cease at the end of the first century and functionally reject sol scripture as according to solutar all other sources of truth such as the creeds and traditions are to be subordinated to the bible too. It was not the apostles alone but the apostles and elders who gathered together in acts 15. All sides agree this is an office will continue after the new testament era. My opponent today, Kelly, while believing that there would be no apostles after the New Testament era, actually has admitted in the past that there's no explicit biblical warrant for this. For instance, in his dialogue with Catholic apologist Trent Horn from two years ago, he said, quote, I would agree with you, Trent Horn, there's no scripture that states that the office of apostle would cease of the New Testament. You're correct. This begs many questions. For instance, is the canon of scripture an article of fate? Is the sensation of public revelation instantly tied into to scriptura? It appears that problems like Kelly accept articles of fate that are not actually found in the Bible itself.

Now in the final few minutes we have let's address whether 2236 to 17 teaches soluttorically and in the modern period to support this principle. Point one Paul did not say scripture was sufficient only profitable. The Greek term translates as profitable is of which is actually a quality weak word. It does not denote formal sufficiency but something that is useful or beneficial as major lexicons like higher Greek states such as bag multime and tdt it's a marginal or fractional word in other words there are a number of Greek words Paul could have used and should use if you wish to portray scripture as being formally sufficient especially in light of the perspect of scripture another essential boning block of soul scripture such as terms or ko eanos anda indeed such terms are used in the pastoral pistols themselves note the concept something being formally sufficient for its tos eg 126 68 by having food and raignment for these we shall suffice ourselves. 2 Timothy 2:22 that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses the same commit thou the faithful men who shall be able to teach others also said to those in receipt of oral not purely in scripture teaching in revelation here not just the substance of the epistle the Ephesians but also the interpretation der from Paul himself over a 3-year period see Acts 20:31 and 126 with contentment is great gain in the exeical edition of the New Testament volume 3 pages 5 11- 12 the following definition the term of is offered which highlights how weak the term from ease even when its entire semantic domain is examined in comparison to force many problems and apologists read into it all it's useful it's advantageous it's useful it's a value where expected 2 to3 16 it denotes graph your scripture being useful or profitable where expected Titus 38 and other instances elsewhere in the pastoral epistles it denotes something being profitable two the only Bible said or god breed argument some argue that is a term translated god breed Greek tento is predicated only upon scripture Acts laminon vis the Greek New Testament. Therefore, incripted revelation read the Bible is the only inspired authority from God. You see one such apologetic from Eric Spins in the reformed apologist in his book Evangelical Answers on the slide. There are many problems with this. For example, if an authority can only be privileged as being inspired from God when such a term is predicated upon it, what about the time before the inscription at 2316? Was there a question about scripture being God breed revelation prior to such? If the argument proves something, it proves too much. Further many eternities are said to be inspired by God usually or revelation 1 Thessalonians 2:13 to Thessalonians 2:15 and so we have seen with respect to the lurggical reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah 2 Chronicles 29:25 and 25:4 and such authorities are said to be by the biblical authors themselves be on par with the written word with respect to their eternity and inspiration further when one looks at the petristic and medieval periods there's many instances of teas being used for non-scriptural sources in Christian literature eg testament of Abraham ascension a from circa 8100 AD its use of life-giving tamus its growing in this from the 4th century based commentary in Genesis was called a god breed exposition using the term tabusttos the senical letter of the council of Ephesus circuit 433 referred to its condemnation of netorius as an inspired tnustas judgment furthermore when one looks at Christian literature after the new testament period such as the apostolic fathers and the postnian fathers there's inspirationist language all throughout and I bring this up to show that one has to be cautious about inspiration language in general eg 2 Peter 1 and tap ntos specifically in 22 3:16 Baptist scholar Lee Murdal wrote quote the author second clement one clement was an inspired document and sites one clement 233 to4 were the words for the prophetic word also says 2 112 these are the usual words that designate writings as inspired come Rome told these readers that Paul's letter 1 Corinthians was written with true inspiration 1 clement 473 but later claimed inspiration for himself saying his own letter was written through the Holy Spirit 1 come 632. Ignatius also emphasized his own inspiration. I spoke with a great vice with God's advice. But some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge and division among you. But the one in whom I'm bound is my witness. I had no knowledge of this from any human being. But the spirit was preaching insaness. Ignatius to the fellow Delphians 71b2. Elsewhere Macdonald wrote quote the traditional assumption that the early Christians believe that only the canonical ranks was inspired is not demountable from the available evidence. One example after the apostolic period would be Aasius 297 to 373 in these works the bishops of Africa from the year 369 and this is from Mina PG26 folio 1032 quote but the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical sin in Nika abides forever compared to the bishop's vfa 1 PG26 folio 1029 the confession arrived in Nika as we we see more sufficient enough by itself he canos for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the church here Atinesius is the The reign of the lord came through na and it abides forever mania estana at is actually borrowing from the language of Isaiah 40:8 from the subusian a text presence often apply to scripture to human the word of a god remains forever not benias in context is not saying that dice was merely consistent with scripture like a pro saying a theologically sound sermon by their pastor was the word of the lord he was speaking of how theological decisions in dia were as authoritarative and binding to scripture compared to use of heanos apping cannot say this any secondary source of eternity. He's not alone. For instance, Basil epistle 114 from the year 372. Quote, "Those once assembled on Nika spoke not without the work in the inner Gaia of the Holy Spirit." And the Gia in the Greek literature refers to not just the activity but the agent engaged in an activity. So this is very high language as well. Finally, all or every scripture distributive or attributive? A question that is often begged but needs to be proven by the pro is that pic means all scripture as in the totality of scripture the attributive sense and not every single scripture the distributive sense. However, this is counted even by pros eg. Philip Taylor in his commentary on the pastorals quote given the functional distributive way in which scripture is envisioned in two3. The logical conclusion is that Paul wished affirm the divine inspiration applies evenly text by text to to the entire Old Testament. Both as we regarded as predicates of every text of scripture is followed by many including Vincent word studies new testament and Lutheran scholar Bo rake in his entry under passing hass in TDN. So the defender solos scripture here is in a conundrum one if pagraph refers to all scripture in a distributed sense eg the book of boadai singularly or the genealogies in 1 chronicles 1:8 singularly. And if this text is a support of formal sufficiency, they will need to show the core tenants of the pros and faith from such a formally sufficient text, i.e. the book of Obadia 1 Chronicles 1:8, including but not limited to the personal pre-existence of Jesus, the concept of antiology of Jesus with the father and forensic justification and atonement. Alternatively too, if they believe that pagraph is being used here attributively, they will inevitably shoot themselves in the foot by appealing to this text in support of formal sufficiency. How so? If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is indeed teaching soul scripture, this means that the graph a scripture available to Timothy was formally sufficient and would represent the totality or the tota of scripture or the tota of scriptura. So text after two time superflous are useful only in the same way that the dedic modern proence. So in conclusion solos scriptor is an exogetical impossibility as no biblical text or text can be used using the historical grammatical method of ex Jesus to support it as we're all read at times of public revelation. Many of the essential building blocks required for solar scripture to be true such as the sessation of public revelation at the end of first century is nowhere explained in the new testament. There are no instances of people operating under a solos scripture paradigm as seen for example there being other sources in the scriptures being able to bind the consciences of believers immediately as we have seen in this opening and we will see with perspect throughout this debate solar which is the formal doctrine of proism is not derived from the teachings of Jesus the apostles the earliest Christians and sound exists the biblical texts as the corban rule of the lord Jesus Christ

condemned in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, it is to be rejected as a false tradition of men. Thank you.

All right. Well, thank you very much for that opening statement, Robert. Uh, Kelly, we're going to switch now to your rebuttal. Um, I'm going to actually take myself and Robert off the screen. Actually, I'll do that once we get going here. Let me get the timer set for your response to Robert's opening statement. You have 10 minutes. Uh, I'm ready when you are. When you begin speaking, we can start the time.

>> Just make sure. Can you hear me? Okay.

>> Yep. Can hear you just fine.

>> All right. Go ahead and go. Thank you.

>> All right.

>> All right. First off, thank you. Um, I can tell I'm going to have a lot of fun videos to respond to you later on, Robert. Um, you shared a lot of information there. Um, let me first say this, and many people will not agree. I get it. But this debate is about doctrinal truth for Christians today. A high percentage of what Robert just presented with a lot of his information quoting doing different things still does not refute what we're talking about today. What are we talking about today? What we're talking about today is is the Bible the ultimate authority for doctrinal truth for us today to examine things. Right? He did not prove or validate or give anything superior or more than what we would have from the Bible. I grant that he has a lot of reasons why he wants to go outside of the Bible. For example, if I look at what Paul says, Paul says in 2 Timothy chapter 4, "The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will go after their own lust. They will heap for themselves teachers with their itching ears. They will turn away their ears from the truth and turn to fables." How can we determine what's true doctrine and what's false? Are we our ultimate authority? Is Robert infallible? If you're a Latter-day Saint, are you more reliable than the Bible? Who is your ultimate authority? That is what this debate is about, doctrinal truth. And so in the cross-examination, I welcome different questions that Robert wants to bring up. But the debate today is on is the Bible the ultimate source for knowing doctrinal truth? Now, I understand that God speaks today. I don't deny that. I don't deny the gifts in regards to that. Robert brought up my conversation with uh Trent Horn a couple years ago. I said in that conversation that I there's no scripture that says there's no apostles for today. God can call and use people, but when we look at the Bible, we don't see any apostolic succession being passed on for future apostles. The early church, if we looked at even though the early church fathers, they're not inspired. Where in the first, second century did they claim that they're inspired or there were apostles still going around? This is not taught. This is not what the Bible teaches. So in response here, I want to start where he kind of was just at uh and hopefully for the sake of time uh I can get through this. You brought up 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 6 and 7 and you used the word talking about the word profitable that it's not all-sufficient. I have never claimed that. I have never claimed that is the all-sufficient, if you will, and this like it's that nothing else can be done. If I look at the scripture here, it says when Paul is writing to Timothy, he says back in verse 14, "continue the things which you have learned and been con been assured of knowing whom you have learned them." So he's learning from the Apostle Paul. Number one. Number two, Paul points Timothy to the scriptures. And from a child thou hast known what? The holy scriptures which are what? Are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. That's the statement. The scriptures give us wisdom. They give us wisdom to have faith in Jesus Christ. What does Paul then say? He says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." Now, I don't claim this verse is saying the whole Bible right here, like because the New Testament wasn't fully written or developed at this time. But what is the principle or what's the blueprint that we see? Paul says it's what? Profitable for doctrine. So it's useful. It's valuable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, instruction of righteousness. That's what I believe. I believe when we're looking at the Bible, right, God's word, God's word, and we're reading it from Genesis to Revelation. God has given us what we need to know from the past about the origin of sin, humanity, the fall, the issue of a restoration of a Messiah to come to die upon the cross and be resurrected, to know who Jesus Christ is, to know about his second coming. Everything that the Lord wanted us to have, I believe God gave us right here. Now, if anyone claims there needs to be new revelation, actually the burden of proof is on you for that. You have to be able to prove that whatever books you have that are extra, those are actually inspired. I welcome that. Prove to me the Book of Mormon is inspired. Prove to me these writings from Joseph Smith are actually inspired scriptures. I welcome that. I hope you can do that because then if you can, I'll become a Mormon.

Now, earlier on, um, trying to keep my notes here, you talked about the word of God. Um, the expression "word of God" doesn't necessarily mean scripture. And I have my own little notes here as well. We do see Jesus when he's talking to the Pharisees both in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. Jesus explicitly says the commandment of God. What was that? That was something from the Old Testament. He says, "making the word of God no effect." What's that? Talking about the written word from the Old Testament. That's what Jesus was contrasting there. Jesus, in fact, said, "It is written," some 80-something times, pointing to the authority of scripture. Jesus said in John 10:35, "the word of God came," which scripture cannot be broken. He says it over and over, "It is written." So we see Paul. Paul says in Romans 9:17, he says here, "for the scripture says to Pharaoh." We see that. We see scripture talking about God-breathed. So we see a blueprint. We see a standard in the word of God that we have that is the blueprint here. My contention for today, and I welcome the cross-examination to go back and forth because I know that you're not going to get to everything that I shared, and I look forward to the cross-examination. But here's my thing here in this debate with your opening right now. You presented a lot of information. To my knowledge, you did not demonstrate a single thing that refutes the understanding of sola scriptura. The basis is that scripture is the ultimate authority to know doctrinal truth. You brought things in the LXX. That's fine. But historically, the Jewish people, which Jesus quoted, he quoted the Hebrew scriptures, right? So even you listen to me, please hear me out. Latter-day Saints, you have the same 66-book canon as myself. Now, if you want to say it's corrupted, you say there's been doctrines removed, I'd like to see which doctrines have been removed from the Bible that Joseph Smith restored in the Book of Mormon that's been restored over there. I'd love to see that. The onus is on you. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years. Joseph Smith came 18 centuries later, making the claim that there is a new revelation, a new restoration. All these churches are false. There needs to be restoration. There's Melchizedek priesthood, modern-day apostles, apostles and prophets. These are all claims from Joseph Smith. So I'm making the affirmative of the case that the Bible is the standard to know whether someone is true or false. God has given us that revelation. If someone comes along and claims divine revelation, how do we test that? Do we just go with it? Why not the Reorganized Latter-day Saints with Joseph Smith III, who took over in 1860 or right after Joseph Smith? Anyway, I remember the exact date. Sorry about that. But why not them? Why not Jehovah's Witnesses with Charles S. Russell? Why not the Seventh-day Adventists with Ellen G. White? Why not Islam? Muhammad claimed divine revelation. He claimed a divine experience with Gabriel. They have the Quran. Why not the Quran? What is the standard to test whether someone's a true or false prophet? That's the premise I'm at today. That's the claim. Is the scriptures good enough for us? Sufficient, profitable, useful to demonstrate truth from error? A false prophet from a true prophet? Is that or do we need more? And if we need more, then I want to be shown that. Show me. Prove to me that we need more.

>> One minute.

>> Thank you. Thank you, Jacob. Prove to me from the word of God that we need more than scripture for today to know truth from error. I'll end with that. Thank you.

>> All right. Well, thank you very much, Kelly. I'm going to go ahead and bring on Robert here. Robert, let me get the timer prepped.

>> Sorry. Uh, I actually have slides for this as well, so I'm going to share my screen if that's okay.

>> Yes. Then let's go ahead and share those with me and I'll get those put up.

>> Can you see that?

>> I can now. So, let me go ahead and let me restart my timer here. Okay. And hold on one moment.

>> Take your time.

>> Okay. When you are ready, I will start the time.

>> Thank you. I will start my timer now. The thesis of this debate is sola scriptura teaches that the Bible, 66 books, is the ultimate rule of faith to which all other sources of faith are to be tested or examined by derived doctrinal truth. Mormonism could be false. Roman Catholicism could be false. Eastern Orthodoxy could be false. That does not mean that the Protestant system of belief is the default position. Kelly has a burden. And so far throughout this debate, we've heard no exegesis of any of the relevant texts pertinent to this debate. Now, as I note here, because Kelly uh brings up issues about the canon and the 66 books, you know, I will note here the consistent problem with having to privilege extra-biblical sources, but they do such in a way inconsistent with sola scriptura. They do so many ways concerning us to one, the fact of the inspiration of many books in the Old and New Testaments is not directly accessible from the biblical texts themselves, and two, many books by prophets and apostles and primaas appear to be prophetic, inspired, are no longer accessible. This begs the following question: What is the epistemological basis upon which a Protestant like Kelly can one, affirm the inspiration of canonized books, not their historical and textual reliability merely, and two, reject such books for missing books written by Paul, for all?

Now, on point one, Baptist scholar Lee Martin McDonald wrote, quote, "Other than the author of Revelation, no other New Testament writer comes close to making the claim of writing sacred scripture. Paul certainly believed that what he wrote was important to be shared with other churches in the region because he thought it was beneficial to them in dealing with similar challenges facing the other churches. He no doubt also thought that he had spirit with uh when he gave his advice to Corinthians, but Paul never calls his own writing scripture. Many later churches believed that what he wrote was sacred scripture, but Paul does not make this claim." Elsewhere, quote, "There are other passages in 1 Corinthians that did not appear to be written by one who was consciously aware of writing sacred scripture. For example, while Paul was addressing the divisions in the Corinthian church, he appears frustrated with the church and says he thanks God he baptized none of them except Crispus and Gaius. But then as later as if in an afterthought that he also baptized the household of Stephanas, 1 Corinthians 1:14-16. If he, Paul, was led by the spirit in writing sacred scripture in verse 14, would he have to correct himself in verse 16?"

Here's the dilemma for the Protestant. If the canon, the total scripture, is not an article of faith and related thereto, the fact of the inspiration of individual books of the canon, say Jude, their teachings that cannot be bound upon professing believers. Therefore, on what consistent basis would my opponent or any other Protestant condemn as a heretic, whether material or formal, it doesn't matter, a professing Protestant who argues that after much study and prayer, allow the canon test that the canon was wrong and Luther was right in his initial skepticism concerning works such as James and Jude? Now, if the canon is an article of faith and related thereto, the fact of the inspiration of Jude, for example, when the biblical text is such explicated, there cannot be any teaching that immediately binds a believer and is absent from the biblical texts per person scripture on missing books. Let me just focus on one issue, 1 Corinthians 5:9-10, quote, "I Paul wrote unto you an epistle not to company with fornicators, yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters, for then must he needs go out of the world." I could quote actually many scholars, including P. And you agree this is a missing epistle, but I'm just going to quote one Protestant apologist, Kelly P himself, back in April, quote, "What Paul actually wrote, actually, what we call 1 Corinthians today would actually be technically 2 Corinthians. He, Paul, actually wrote a letter to them that we don't have." In this light, Protestant apologists have to functionally reject scripture in order to salvage sola scriptura. Reformed apologist Robert Bowman offered this objection that he would then answer: "Objection: God may have inspired writings in the past to which we no longer have access. For example, we don't have all of Paul's letters to the Corinthians." In response to this, Bowman wrote, quote, "By any of Paul's missing letters to the Corinthian congregation have been inspired? Sure. But since we don't have them, moot. Scriptures by definition, whatever extent remains, they are as qualified as the word of God." This is not new in the Protestant tradition. For instance, Calvin, quote, "The epistle which he, Paul, speaks is not at this extent. Nor is there any doubt that many others are lost. It is enough, however, that those that have been preserved to us which the Lord foresaw would suffice." Thou name English Annotation, 1645. "The letter referred to in verse 9 is not now extent. And note the following quote: "Although piety leads us to acknowledge that this previous letter was written by divine inspiration in the same way that we recognize the inspiration of books of Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Iddo, Shemaiah, and others mentioned in the Old Testament which are now lost, yet it does not thus follow that the canon of scriptures is imperfect as the Romanists would infer. For as the principal contents of those former books are believed to be found in the books of Chronicles and Kings." This is absurd. As I note, if we only had one epistle of Paul, say Romans, could one dismiss or be ambiguous about the authoritative and inspired nature of the remaining 12? After all, one could argue that the principal contents of Paul's other epistles be found in the epistle of the Romans.

Now, let's address the issue of the Bereans in Acts 17. I know this is a favorite for Kelly. Of course, it should be. That there are different, different epistemological situations. The Bereans and modern Protestants. The New Testament Christians were not in the same epistemological position as the Bereans pre-conversion. So the appeal of the Bereans in such a simplistic manner is to compare apples and oranges. Even from the perspective of modern-day Protestantism, there are three categories: Christians living during the time of the apostles, non-Christians coming into New Testament Christianity, Christians living in the post-apostolic era, sharing the epistemology of the first category, not the second, which would include the Bereans post-conversion. Further, during the time of the apostles, including in the second of Acts and later in the record of the event in scripture, age, there is more than one authoritative, binding source of revelation. The Bereans did not and could not practice or teach sola scriptura. This is actually made by Protestants and apologists for sola scriptura. E.g., James White, quote, "There is an errant belief that sola scriptura is somehow contradicted by the Berean acceptance of new revelation, as if sola scriptura is meant to be applied in times of revelation rather than being a normative rule for the church." Keith Madison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, page 161, quote, "Paul's declaration that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah is a new revelation not found in the Old Testament. Nobody denies this. The Apostle Paul's oral proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ was as authoritative as the Old Testament at the time." Roman Catholic apologist Robert Gennison's review of Madison's book wrote, quote, "No matter how much the Bereans looked in scripture, they could not tell whether Paul's oral revelation about Jesus being the Messiah was true or false. They had to depend on Paul's oral revelation for that. The only thing scripture did for them was allow them to apply the biblical information to Jesus." It should also be noted that Paul claimed his new teaching was based on the Old Testament, and the Bereans going to scripture was not a necessary default position they held. Something instead that he and Silas encouraged them to do. This is reflected in Protestant commentaries. E.G., C.K. Barrett wrote, quote, "Paul's fundamental assertion of Bereans in Thessalonica was understood by Luke as: A) the Old Testament scriptures affirm the coming of the Messiah who will suffer and rise from the dead, and B) Jesus was this Messiah. This was a novel interpretation of the Old Testament, and the Berean Jews wished, before committing themselves to the new faith, to see if this was true. And a *krinein* is nowhere else used in the New Testament to study scripture. It is just rather a legal examination of witnesses or an accused person, and this is in fact the sense in which it is used here. Paul set up the scriptures as witnesses. Does their testimony, when tested, prove his case?" Lutheran Lensky wrote, quote, "*Krinein* is often used in the forensic sense, especially with regard to the preliminary question and examination of a prisoner by the judge. This gives us a sense that applies here. These Jews probed most carefully whether what Paul and Silas taught about Jesus was really in the Old Testament, as these preachers, i.e., Paul and Silas, themselves claimed." Furthermore, there's apologetic and evangelistic preaching, which is what people receive pre-conversion. But once one becomes a member of the believing community, here, the New Testament church, they are the recipients of what's called didactic preaching, where they accept the teaching authority of the church and the binding authority of its officers. You see this for instance in Matthew 18, the parallel text to Matthew 16, as well as Luke 10:16, 2 Corinthians 10:8. A rather interesting example is where Paul himself claimed normative authority on the basis of he's been a New Testament apostle, quote, "But in my opinion, she is happier she remains as she is, and I think also have the Spirit of God." Even Calvin, astonished supporter of sola scriptura, agrees with this reading as to what he adds, "According to my judgment, he does not mean by this expression his opinion was doubtful, but it is as if he had said that he such was these decision as to this question premeditatedly as he has the Spirit of God, which is sufficient to give full and perfect authority." It should also be known that Luke 24:44 is not actually evidence necessary of the uh, the Protestant later Hebrew Jewish Old Testament canon. This is actually acknowledged by scholars. Let me just quote one instance. This is from The Reception of the Biblical Canon. "The reference to Psalms in Luke 24:44 may well be an early sign of emerging third part of the Hebrew scriptures. But the early church fathers did not pick up on this and never equated Psalms with the *Ketuvim* in the Hebrew Bible or by other poetic and wisdom texts. This is generally agreed in scholarship as well." Furthermore, with respect to Josephus, Eastern Orthodox scholar Father Steven de Young, in his whole council, God correctly notes that on the face of it, Josephus uses rather extreme hyperbole. Newborn infants have no opinion on the relative authority of various religious texts. He also correctly notes that during the period of this time, and this is >> uh, accepted by canon scholars, at the time, I know one minute, that there was a variety in the adoption amongst Jews that they had a general agreement about most of the books, but there were some debates about others. For instance, there's the Qumran recension that actually accepted the authority of Sirach as being inspired scripture, and at Qumran, we actually have Aramaic fragments of Tobit and some other works as well that kind of show that they actually accepted them as being canonical or scriptural. I suggest Catholic apologist Gary Michuta, as well as David McDonald, the Baptist, for more on this. So again, to recap, Kelly has the burden. He has to show that sola scriptura is indeed true. I could concede, and I will concede for the sake of this argument and this debate, that Mormonism is false. It does not mean that Protestantism is the default position. So, um, I have 10 seconds left, but I'll have the, uh, consume my time for the cross-examination.

>> All right. Let's get us all up here on stage. Thank you very much for that, Robert. Okay, Kelly, are you there? There you are.

>> Yes.

>> Okay, we now are going to move into the cross-examination portion of uh the debate. Um, in this portion of the debate, um, Kelly will be asking Robert Boland questions. And when you ask those questions, they should be centered on the debate topic. Um, and they should be questions rather than going off into long statements. Um, if that does happen, I will interject. uh um as we want the cross-examination to be focused on questions and then answers um and not extended commentaries on those answers. Okay, I'll try and enforce that as equally and as fairly as possible. Um, so with that, um, let me get the timer ready. Kelly, when you begin uh asking your first question uh to Robert, I will begin the timer.

>> Fair enough. Thank you. All right, Robert, thank you very much for this debate. Um, let me ask you a simple question, Robert. Why does the LDS church have the same 66 books canon? Why?

>> Mormonism is not the topic of the debate. So, I'm going to concede for this debate. Mormonism is false. The burden is on you. You're trying to shift the burden of this debate.

>> No, no, we're talking, we're talking about the canon, right? The Bible. Correct.

>> The No, we're talking about the present belief that the 66 books in the Protestant canon is formally sufficient and the final court of appeal.

>> Right. But you, you presented a lot of information about Old Testament, New Testament and stuff that reference to canon. Correct.

>> Sure.

>> So, so I'm asking you a question. Why if, if I have a burden of proof for me to have more than 66, why do you as Latter-day Saints have the same 66 and not more?

>> I'm not saying you have the burden to actually have more or less than 66. I'm just showing that what I present was an internal critique of uh the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura and the exegesis problems with that as well. Furthermore, as you know, we don't, we actually believe that there are missing books in the Old and New Testament that were inspired by God and a host of other issues. But as I said, like Mormonism could be false, that does not mean sola is true. It would be the equivalent of, for instance, if I had a debate with Roman Catholics.

>> Okay. Go ahead.

>> Yeah. Do you agree or disagree that when Joseph Smith was translating his translation called the Joseph Smith Translation, do you believe that he was guided by God to do his work?

>> Again, this has nothing to do with the debate. We're not debating the JST.

>> Please, it does. Please answer the question, please.

>> No, because Joseph Smith could be a false prophet. That does not mean sola is the default position.

>> But he is your prophet. So, I'm asking you a question. Would do.

>> But, but as I said, for the sake of this debate, I'm going to concede he was a false prophet and Mormonism is false. You're trying to shift.

>> Kelly, you're shifting the burden.

>> Can I, can I make my statement to ask a question, please? He claimed that he was given divine revelation to correct the errors in the Bible and he got revelation from God. Is this true or is this false?

>> Two things. One, again, you're trying to shift the burden because again, the thesis of this debate is sola scriptura. That means that you have the burden to actually show sola scriptura. And again, as I said, and I said this in my opening and my rebuttal, for the sake of this debate, I'm going to concede Mormonism is false and that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet. That doesn't mean Protestantism is the default position.

>> Kelly.

>> It's a yes or no. Do you believe he was led by the Lord to have these revelations to correct the Bible? Yes or no?

>> You're trying to shift the burden, the proof, and I'm not going to let you do that. You did that with Hayden. Again, the burden is on you to actually demonstrate sola scriptura.

>> I'm on the topic. I'm on the topic here. I'm wanting to know why you as a Latter-day Saint don't accept the Joseph Smith Translation. I'm just trying to ask a simple question. Why?

>> Again, you're shifting the burden.

>> So, you don't have an answer.

>> I do have an answer, but I'm not going to let I'm not going to let you actually steer it into a completely different topic.

>> Kelly.

>> Response.

>> You're shifting the burden. The burden is on you to actually show sola scriptura.

>> Okay. So, what about the Apocrypha books?

>> Do you Why don't you as Latter-day Saints accept those extra books? And what was your answer to that?

>> Again, this is not a topic about Mormonism.

>> No. If you want to discuss like say, no, if you want to discuss like the new.

>> Just for a moment, both of you, just for a moment. I just want to clarify for the audience's sake so that they know. Robert is not obligated to answer any questions that he feels are irrelevant to the debate. A question can be asked and the person can simply respond that they're not going to answer that question because it's not relevant to the debate. So, I just want people to know that that is something that is allowed in the debate. You don't have to answer the questions that are given if they don't feel that it's relevant to the debate. I just want to make that clear as part of the part of the rules here. So, let me go ahead and get back. Um, before I start the timer, though, uh, is there any clarify any you guys need any clarification on that on the as far as how this, how this works?

>> Okay.

>> I, I'm, I'm just, I just want to know like Kelly is trying to shift the burden of this debate. The debate is whether sola scriptura is true. And right now, what I'm, what I'm, what I'm going to point out, Robert, and to both of you, is if someone feels that someone is shifting the burden, they can simply say, "You're shifting the burden," and I'm not going to answer that question. That is allowed within the rules.

>> Can I ask a clarifying thing here, please?

>> Yeah, absolutely.

>> I'm asking questions because it's very relevant to the issue of doctrinal truth. That's the whole part of this thesis of doctrinal truth. So my questions are very much relevant.

>> And that's fine. We, what we'll do is we'll allow the audience to decide what they think is relevant to the debate thesis. And so I'm going to go off and I'm going to start back on the timer. Um, and so Kelly, you can continue your cross-examination. Let me go ahead and start the timer right now. How about this, Robert? Can you define to me what you understand doctrinal truth to mean?

>> Well, doctrine refers like say, teaching. So it being true would be it corresponds to reality. Anything else you want to add to that or just just that?

>> Um, it can be deduced through logical reasoning. It can also be revealed through uh public revelation, private revelation, and so forth. So,

>> Okay. How do we determine what, what is doctrinally true? What's not doctrinally true?

>> Well, according to the biblical authors, it was they lived during a time of public revelation. So the ongoing uh public revelation, the teaching authority of the church, and um, other sources as well. There's no instances of any.

>> How about for today? Today, we're we're 2,000 years later. How about for today? Doctrinal truth. How do we determine what's true and what's false?

>> We can use various tools at our disposal. Again, for the sake of this debate, I'm just going to assume Mormonism is false. So again, you.

>> I'm trying to stay on topic. I'm just asking you how do you determine what's doctrinally true? For me as a Protestant, I go to scripture. I'm asking you, how do you determine what's doctrinally true?

>> Again, again, like me as a person or like in general?

>> I'm asking you directly, Robert Boland, how do you?

>> Well, I'm a Latter-day Saint, so like, of course, like I would accept the teaching authority of the LDS Church and its additional scriptures. But again, this is not a debate on Mormonism.

>> Okay.

>> It's a debate on whether sola scriptura is true.

>> So, sola scriptura is the dividing factor for what we're talking about to determine whether something is ultimately true doctrinally or false. Correct. That's what I'm trying to prove today. Right? Is that, is that correct?

>> No. Sola scriptura is the formal doctrine of Protestantism. So you would have to show that. And again, you're just assuming it. I would like, for instance, Kelly, if you actually ask me questions about exegesis.

>> Hold on. Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the standard to be able to know the ultimate truth or ultimate standard for truth. So I'm asking you, how do you, if the Bible is not the ultimate source, what is for you?

>> Well, I would, again, I don't believe the Bible is the ultimate source, even if you use just the scriptures or the Bible itself, you know, because there's not, according to the biblical authors, there's no evidence that they actually believed scripture. And again, no deification between scripture and the Bible was ever could be would be ever formally sufficient.

>> And we often see, um, other issues that come up as well, like believing that the word of God was not just scripture, but like the teaching authority of the church. You see this with the uh, the original reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah and other considerations as well.

>> So again, so scripture plus what else then for you defines doctrinal truth? What else plus the Bible for you?

>> Well, the New Testament model would be scripture, ongoing revelation, because there's no explicit teaching that public revelation was expected to end at the first century, and that's a constitutive element of sola scriptura.

>> And so theology.

>> I'm going to make it even simpler for you, Robert. I, I don't, maybe I'm just not, you know, getting this. Cross. How do you know? How about this? Why is Muhammad a true or false prophet based on what we're talking about to know doctrinal truth? How would you determine if Muhammad is a true or false prophet?

>> Again, I can, I will answer, but I know like, again, you're trying to shift the burden because again, the onus is on you to actually give historical exegesis support to sola scriptura. And again, you're not doing that. You did that with Hayden. Two.

>> If you want, but can you answer the question, please?

>> Yeah, I know. I'm just prefacing it. Two, with respect to Islam, Islam makes a number of claims. For instance, the Quran and the Hadith literature claims that it teaches what was in the present 7th century biblical text, you know, the so-called Islamic dilemma. So, there would be considerations about that as well. So, it's not just like scripture, but like historical queries and so forth, one could actually engage in. So Muhammad claimed he had a divine experience with an angel Gabriel and claims to be the last seal of the prophets.

>> Why? So what? That's exactly what Islam claims. He's the last prophet.

>> So why should we not accept him as a true prophet? He claimed it. Why isn't it true?

>> Well, a couple things. One, just because someone claims something, you know, does not mean it's true. I think we can both all agree with that. But when it comes to Islam, it makes a number of historical claims which can be tested. And to the Quran claims inherentcy, I don't believe any text can be inherent. So that's a defeater already. And three, um, if you read the Quran, and it's been a number of years, uh, so correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to assume that the biblical texts available in the 7th century was consistent with the Quran. And we do know that there are radical divergences between the narratives in the Quran and the biblical texts even of that period of time. So in other words, if you were to examine whether or not Muhammad is a true or pro true true or false prophet, you would test him by his claims and also compare it with scripture. Is that a somewhat close summary?

>> Not just scripture, but yeah.

>> What else would you compare it to?

>> Historical claims, internal consistency, um, other considerations as well.

>> Okay. So, if Muhammad claimed, let's, let's, let's break this down. Muhammad claimed he had a divine encounter with an angel named Gabriel and that he got this divine calling to be a prophet. How could I know as me as a Christian asking you as a Latter-day Saint, how could I know from you that he is actually his claim is false? What would be the criteria to examine him?

>> Well, I'll, I'll answer, but I just, and I think you'll actually agree with me with the preface that something could have appeared to him. You know, we both believe like Satan can masquerade as an angel of light, all at 2 Corinthians 11 and so forth. But proceeding from that, let's just say there's a naturalistic, completely naturalistic explanation for Islamic origins. Uh, the Quran makes a number of claims that can be tested internally and externally. Uh, for instance, the Quran actually has the narrative of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, if you're familiar with that, and that kind of causes all uh consternation with uh Muslim apologists and philosophers how this kind of story which about Christian martyrs appears in the text, um, and so forth. But also like internal and external claims like the crucifixion of Christ, which is, um, depending on the Muslim you talk to, but generally like, um, contradicted, Allah, the interpretation of Surah chapter 4, and of course, like say, you would appeal like say, even if you want to use the Bible, you know, using the Bible as a source, that's fine, but that does not mean sola scriptura. There's no idea like say it means the biblical text is for me sufficient.

>> Let's look at the Bible for example. How would the Bible respond when we read the Bible today? Is there sufficient information in the Bible that could give us the proper doctrinal truths to know whether or not what Muhammad claimed claimed as true or false?

>> Maybe not formally, but maybe materially.

>> So, what can, what would the Bible give us that we could see why Muhammad is not teaching truth? What could we go to in scripture to see that?

>> Well, it would depend on the Muslim you talk to because there's different interpretations of chapter Surah 4. But if they hold to the interpretation that the Quran teaches that Christ did not die and there was no resurrection, you could go to like say the resurrection narratives and the crucifixion narratives in the Gospels.

>> Okay. What about Galatians 1? Galatians 1, Paul says that uh if we or an angel comes from heaven and preaches a different gospel, could that be something possibly how it could be connected with Muhammad?

>> Well, in general, the Judaizers who he's addressing to added something to the instrumentality of justification. So Paul is warning against anyone who would actually corrupt the gospel. I think we would actually agree with this. Although we have different interpretations of what the true gospel is, you know. So, you know, so if one could show that the evangelical, the gospel Islam did contradict it. But of course, that begs the question, like who gets to interpret what is the gospel, you know, and who gets to interpret? Because I'm sure you would agree with me, there's no such thing as an appeal to a text, there's all, you always appeal to an interpretation of a text. That's what Keith Madison correctly noted in his book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura.

>> Okay. So in Galatians 1, Paul says, even if we are an angel from heaven comes and preaches, so it's possible that some kind of divine experience could happen with people like you alluded to, it could have been maybe satanic with Muhammad, right? So if someone like say Muhammad, who rejected Jesus as the Son of God, rejected his crucifixion, resurrection, rejects even many things of the Bible, would that be applicable according to what Paul writes in in Galatians 1 that even if we are an angel of heaven comes and preaches a different gospel, would that be applicable to how we could examine say Islam?

>> Yeah, but that does not mean sola scriptura, formal sufficiency of the biblical texts.

>> If we didn't have Galatians 1, I couldn't have made that statement. Correct.

>> You could not make that exact quote. But the idea or the material would be there.

>> If I didn't have 1 Corinthians 15, that tells me what the gospel is, I couldn't respond to Muhammad properly. Correct.

>> Well, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is given a very loose or very uh restrictive definition of the gospel.

>> My my point. You can know like gospel communities very broadly and specific because in that definition, the virginal conception of Christ is not mentioned as well.

>> I'll give you. Give you my point. My question is, is it not true when we're looking say at 1 Corinthians 15, Paul talks about the gospel, he talks about Jesus died according to the scriptures and was resurrected according to the scriptures, talking about the Old Testament. So if I am talking about Islam, who says according to Muhammad, the prophet, that Jesus is not the Son of God and he didn't die upon the cross, because we have the written writings. Is that not something that's sufficient for us to be able to refute someone who comes say six centuries later or whenever claiming a different gospel? Is that not sufficient for us?

>> Two things. One, there's a number of doctrines not in 1 Corinthians 15 that we would agree the gospel.

>> Simple question. I'm asking a simple question, Robert.

>> And I'm answering. So in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, the text you were talking about, there's no mention that the two natures of Christ, through his personal pre-existence or the virginal conception.

>> Question. I didn't ask that. Didn't ask that.

>> Again, you were equivocating about the term gospel because gospel can be used like specific Jesus to being the Son of God, dying according to scriptures and being resurrected. That's all that I brought up. I said, is that from what we just read, there wouldn't that be sufficient to be able to respond to a Muslim? That's all that I asked you.

>> Would back the question to you, who gets to interpret what's in God means and so forth. But even if you didn't have 1 Corinthians 15, you still have like other sources as well. And again, you kind of equivocated by the term sufficient because for the Protestant, you have to believe that the biblical texts are formally sufficient, not materially sufficient. Meaning that it is capable, valuable, um, uh, reliable. What we would have today to be able to respond to a Muslim who came, you know, Muhammad six, seven centuries later, claiming divine revelation, claiming he's got this new revelation and basically saying what Jesus taught, what the apostles taught is wrong because we have the written word. What I'm asking you is, is that not sufficient in the sense profitable to be able to respond to these claims? That's what I'm trying to ask you.

>> Well, profitable or sola in 2 Timothy just means useful. It's a functional word. And again,

>> If we, if we didn't have the New Testament, how could we respond to Muhammad?

>> Well, I would actually agree with Irenaeus that even if we didn't actually have the New Testament, we had the teaching authority of the oral revelation and the uh ecclesiology. So, like you would still have like the church structure and other sources as well.

>> What does that mean? If we didn't have the New Testament, what could we rely upon?

>> Well, according to Irenaeus, um, from the second century, even if the Gospels and the New Testament were not available, they would still have access to like say the teaching authority of the church, to history.

>> How would you know it was from the church if you don't have it? What could you clarify?

>> They can make up whatever they want and say it's in the church. We don't have the actual source. You can make up whatever you want. How do we know it's actually being true?

>> Because you could appeal to like external sources like history and other issues.

>> You don't actually have the sources. You can make up anything. Isn't that true?

>> Only if you think like say you can go back in time and like change history and, um, make all inscriptions. I don't think you understand the bind he was making.

>> Here's an example. Let me use an example I just told you because I debate Catholic apologists, right?

>> Same here. The claim, the claim, the claim is that I'm using as an example. So I'm not trying to divert, just using an example. Okay.

>> The claim for Catholic apologists is that >> they today teach what the early church fathers taught, right? Say, say for example, Mary.

>> They claimed from a Catholic that's fine.

>> Well, okay. So the first few centuries, the dogmas of Mary were not taught by church fathers. Do you agree? Uh, the perpetual virginity was around the second century onwards, but like the conception.

>> The actual explicit teaching of perpetual virgin Mary was not taught. No, it wasn't.

>> Well, I, I will say this, like I think we would actually be in agreement that Rome claims that the apost, um, dogmas are apostolic in origin, at least in terms of their substance, like the Assumption, the Conception.

>> That's what I'm trying to get to, Robert, because we should have agree, agree with me, like the Assumption is later, and so is the Assumption, although you do have purification.

>> My point, though, is is that these are their tradition, traditions that you're talking about, just a second ago. Tradition, they claim these traditions, but even the early church fathers didn't teach that these dogmas officially, anyway. And second,

>> You're actually making my point.

>> What's that?

>> You're actually making my point because you appeal to like, uh, non-inspired but reliable historical sources.

>> My point, though, is I'm just going off what you said about Irenaeus. That's my whole point. Is in order to be able to have some kind of traditional claim, to have some validation, wouldn't you say we would need something of proof from the actual apostles to make that assertion?

>> Well, even if it comes from the apostles, even you would not believe that means it's ipso facto inspired because, like, for instance,

>> Of course I believe it. One minute left.

>> Well, I know. I'm not allowed to ask questions, but that would mean I'm just going to make a, um, if that's the case, then that means that the missing epistle in 1 Corinthians 5:10 means it's missing scripture in your view as well, because you actually believe it's a genuine, uh, missing epistle attributed to Paul.

>> I, I've, I've openly talked about there's different Old Testament books that we don't have. There's some things in the New Testament, the Laodiceans. That doesn't take away from what I believe the Bible to teach about the blueprint or the standard. My time went extremely fast. Um, because that's a statement. Can I actually answer the statement?

>> Well, I want, I'm going to ask a question. I want.

>> Kelly, can you, you're last question now. Go ahead and ask your last question, Kelly. Robert can answer.

>> So, in all that I've shared, I asked a lot of questions about doctrinal teachings of Joseph Smith pertaining to the priesthood, pertaining to his testimony, pertaining to things of the Book of Mormon. If I was to ask you, Robert, this is a simple question. Why.

Should I believe these things that Joseph Smith claimed 18 centuries later?

Again, as much as I want to answer that question, the debate is not on Mormonism. It's on sola scriptura. And again, that represents you trying to shift the burden.

And in response, in response, in response to the statement you made, then you're actually denying to scripture, which is a constitutive aspect of sola scriptura.

Okay. And that concludes, uh, the cross-examination by Kelly. We now will switch to a cross-examination where Robert will be asking Kelly questions. And so, uh, Robert, when you are ready, I will announce the first question. I will start the timer.

Thank you. And before we begin, uh, Kelly, um, our differences aside, thanks for doing this debate. Uh, there's no personal hostility towards you. I hope you know that.

Well, maybe we might have some future ones. Appreciate it.

We, we should discuss mariology sometime. Okay, I'll start my timer. Uh, okay, Kelly. Uh, because you brought up some issues with Mormonism, would you agree even if Mormonism is false, that does not prove sola scriptura? In other words, would you agree that you bear the burden today, and this represents time but shifting the burden?

Well, me as a born-again evangelical Christian, yes. Um, my whole point to be today was to try to have a friendly, respectful debate of the authority of scripture, our differences aside. So even if what I believe, it doesn't necessarily prove Protestantism or doesn't necessarily even refute directly other claims, my whole point of what I'm trying to share today, maybe I didn't answer your question properly, is to sufficiently give a good or good reason for what I believe, why scripture is the ultimate authority.

And, and for you, scripture equals the 66 books of the Protestant canon. Correct?

Uh, well, unless proven otherwise, I believe that's what we have today for the Bible. Correct.

That's fine. Um, you brought up issues by say, Great Apostasy. Um, can you name one person and provided sources from the year 100 with the close of the New Testament to the year 1,100, a 1,000-year period, who believed what you believe about baptism not being regenerative? The nature of justification, i.e. it is forensic. It's a forensic declaration, not transformative.

People, people like Clement of Rome, Polycarp, they didn't believe, they didn't teach about water baptism. Um, there's a few other people I can't get off my list. There are early church fathers who did hold to justification by faith. There are church fathers who hold to, um, the authority of scripture as being the standard to know truth from error. So there is a claim today for myself as a Protestant that this is a newer thing. But really, the Protestant Reformation was actually a call to go back to many of the early stages. So without going, I could give you a list, but obviously off the top of my head, you know, time is going to go fast.

Uh, can you name one person who agreed with you about baptism, the nature of justification, eternal security, the nature of the church, and that the 66 books of Protestant canon were formally sufficient?

Well, I would say Clement of Rome taught, um, justification by faith. He had many things. John Chrysostom and many of his commentaries or writings talked about faith alone. Um, in regards to the water baptism one, um, that one was a water baptism. Just try to give me a few seconds. Water baptism for many early Christians, even like in the New Testament, when a person believed, they were baptized, right? Then,

Person did not believe in baptism regeneration from that period of time. And if not, I can just move on to my other questions.

Just move on then, because I, I don't have that particular thing right now.

Okay, fair enough. Um, would you agree with me that for sola scriptura to be operative as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church or people of God, there must first be tota scriptura? In other words, sola scriptura cannot be operative during times of special revelation as God-breathed revelation existed in other forms, um, other than written texts.

That was written very complicated. Can you try to dumb that down for me, please?

Uh, would you agree with me that during, say, I don't think this is contested between the two, in the time of the New Testament, there were other sources that were equally inspired of scripture, like oral revelation?

During the time of the apostles.

Yes.

Well, of course. So I believe like just,

And, and just on that, would you agree with me that there must first be tota scriptura, that is all scripture must be available before sola scriptura is operative as the rule of faith?

I don't understand the question. Can you try to word that, please?

Let's try one more time. Um, for sola scriptura to be true, like sola scriptura, that scripture alone is the ultimate source, not that it's the only source, but it's the ultimate source of truth for the believer from the cross perspective, all of scripture must first be available and written.

Okay. In other words, for me as a Protestant to believe why sola scriptura is true, I would need both the Old and New Testament sufficiently to have that case. Is that what you're asking me?

It's something like that.

Uh, I'd kind of move on. I would actually discuss in my opening statement. You can revisit again. Okay.

Um, let's kind of discuss like the issues of like say, articles of faith and normative authority. Um, would you agree? Do you hold the view as many Protestants do, for a doctrine to be true, that is authoritative and binding upon the conscience of people, it must be in the Bible?

For a doctrine to be in the, to be something to be true, must be in the Bible.

Well, not just true, but like, um, it binds the conscience of someone. You must believe it if you're familiar with it. Something that must be essential is what you're saying.

I, I'll read, I'll read the question again. For a doctrine to be true, that is authoritative and binding upon the conscience, must it be in the Bible?

Well, I believe the answer is yes, if that's what you're getting to.

Okay.

I think I just reworded it, but okay.

Yeah. Yeah. No, no, that's fine. Now, for a doctrine to be true, like seen above, must it be explicitly stated in the Bible, or can it be there implicitly? I guess it would depend upon what we're talking about in what verse.

Do you believe that there are essential beliefs that are implicit in the biblical data?

Oh, sure. Absolutely. Jesus is the way, the truth, and life. Very explicit. Absolutely.

No, I said implicit.

Oh, implicit. So, in other words, uh, something that isn't very clear is what you're saying.

Something that might be there but has to be drawn out to like, utter considerations.

So, reword your question again. I'll try and answer. Go ahead. I get, I get you. Say it one more time, please.

Okay. So for a doctrine to be true, and as I said, authoritative and binding upon the conscience, you know.

Okay.

Must it be explicitly stated in the Bible, or can it be there implicitly?

I would say the answer is both. Of course, explicit would be the obvious. Uh, if it's implicit, as long as it can be understood in its proper context, then the answer, I think, would still be yes.

Okay. Uh, for the implicit material, who or what gets to determine what is necessary for a doctrine to be implicit and by various means bind such biblical, albeit implicit doctrines, upon the consciences of men?

Well, that gets into a whole can of worms right there. We're talking about authority, right? Um, I just believe simply the Bible was given to us. It's a simple answer, and we read it for what it says. And a lot of people misread the Bible. I'm sure we both agree that we both have different perspectives. And so, who has the right? I think we each of us have a right to read the scriptures for ourselves and make a God-given conscious decision for what we've been given. With respect to the explicit, can you name one early Christian author, prayer, inscription, sacrament, or council, say between the year 100 to 600, and provide the sources, who one believed in the formal sufficiency of the 66 books of the Protestant canon, and two, believed what you believe about the, um, you know, just focus on that, who would actually agree with you, not just with the canon, but also its, um, status being formally sufficient?

Talk about just, just the 66.

Yeah. So from the year 100 to 600, who agreed with you about the 66-book Protestant canon and believed it was formally sufficient?

Well, to my knowledge, early on, um, what we have today is the same Bible. Early on, traditions came later with the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. There was no official actual canon, canon, like the Catholic Church has today, till the 1500s. Same with the Orthodox, later. So early on, from my understanding, what we have today is the Bible that was used early on.

Are you aware of the, uh, fourth and fifth, uh, uh, century local councils that included the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon?

It was included, but it wasn't inspired. They didn't say it was authoritative as inspired.

Are you aware that they actually put them in the same level as the Old, other Old Testament books, though?

King, King James Bible did the same thing with the Apocrypha, but they weren't considered, uh, authoritative, inspired. They were considered historical. Are you aware of the Muratorian Fragment?

I am.

Are you aware that it includes a number of books as part of the inspired New Testament and Old Testament, such as the Wisdom of Solomon in it?

Yep. Yep. Yep. But, but again, but again, they were not, they were just there, listed as books historically. Same thing with, I think Jerome, he actually rejected many certain, uh, apocryphal books as well. So there was no universal standard directly early on like this, uh, claiming these extra books. The extra books were not considered, uh, inspired.

Are you still there?

When it comes to the canon lists, can you hear me now?

Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead.

Okay. Sorry. When it comes to say the canon lists, say, uh, Rome, Carthage, and Hippo, they actually list these extra books, you know, the Apocrypha, in the same level as the other Old Testament books. There's no distinction between their authority when they're being listed. They're peppered throughout. So what's your basis? Because I'm unaware of any scholar who would agree with this, that they still relegated them as like non-inspired or just useful historically, like the King James in the.

Historically, I'm not aware. Even though, just like how the King James had the Apocrypha as well, I'm not aware of them saying these were binding books for Christians that they had to believe these. I'm aware of the 39 and I'm aware of the 27, but I'm not aware of the extra books unless you can show me otherwise. I'm not aware of that. I'll actually answer that now. Uh, have you actually read any of the, uh, recent scholarship on the Old Testament canon and its development by, like say, the likes of Lee McDonald?

I don't know who that is. No. Uh, he's a biblical scholar and he's written a two-volume work on the Old and New Testament canon. Uh, I would recommend it. Um, and as much as I disagree with him, Catholic apologist Gary Mashuda's book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, I think kind of gives a more nuanced perspective as well. But, um, let's kind of move on to like, uh, because I raised in my opening statement, normative eternity.

Have you ever read Steve Christie's, Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller? You might want to get that one.

I've read it. Yeah.

Okay.

Okay. Now, on the issue of normative authority, um, what would you say to someone who came up to you, say, like they were a fellow Baptist in your local Baptist church and said they have read a lot of conservative biblical scholarship and apologetics, have prayed about it, and believe that he wants to jettison books of the canon, such as Jude?

I'm sorry. Can you say that one more time, please? Sorry. One more time.

Sure. Imagine like say someone in your local Baptist church, like a very godly person in the Baptist congregation you attend. They go up to you and say, "Kelly, I've read a lot of conservative, uh, scholarship on the New Testament. I've done a lot of praying. I've done the burying test. I think Luther was correct in calling Christ and wanting to get rid of say James or Jude from the biblical canon." What would you say to them?

I'd say, well, that's, that's the claim they're getting. They're claiming that from God, right? They're claiming an inspiration from God.

Right?

No, it's based on their study as well as your prayer and so forth. So.

Well, I mean, I, I would say to them, I would ask a lot of questions of why. I'd ask them for their criteria. I'd look into it more. Also, I don't know if you meant to say I'm not actually Baptist. I don't know if you know that or not. I think you, I'm just not, yeah, I think I read one of your posts. Just side note, I'm non-denominational, but anyway, no, no big deal.

Yeah. So, I would just say to the person, why, I would ask a lot of questions, had they come to that conclusion, and ask them for their reasons why. I would try to reason with them to find out why. Do you believe that someone actually knowingly rejects a biblical book, say Jude, you know, they think it's like non-inspired and it should not be in the New Testament. Do you believe that is heresy, or do you believe that's a non-essential?

That is an excellent question. I've never actually been asked that question before. So, um, I believe the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, is the word of God. If someone outright, if outright rejects it, I would be questioning why. I couldn't say that person's not a Christian because the Bible doesn't say you have to accept the 66 books to be a Christian. It's about the death, burial, and resurrection. But could that be heretical? It would depend upon the sense of why they're doing what they're doing. If they're rejecting and being, as the Bible talks about, a heretic, being self-willed and not willing to reason with people, then the answer would be yes.

Okay. Um, to go back to my rebuttal, um, do you believe that the canon is an article of faith, that it, that is something that someone must believe in and relate there to the inspiration of all the books of the canon, or do you believe that's a non-essential?

In other words, could you choose to believe only half the Bible compared to the 66?

Well, if you want, I'll read what I wrote in my rebuttal, and then you can actually answer that. Would that be okay? I'll try. Go ahead.

Yeah, sure. Um, so here, here's what I said, and then you can take as long as you want in response. Uh, here's the dilemma for the present. If the canon, the tota scriptura, is not an article of faith and related there to the fact of the inspiration of individual books, say Jude, then there are teachings that cannot be bound upon professing believers. Therefore, on what consistent basis would you or any other Protestant condemn as a heretic, whether material or formal, a professing Protestant who argues that after must studying prayer, that one should jettison say Jude or James? And in, and also, and then you can answer and take as long as you want. If the canon is an article of faith and related there to the fact of the inspiration of Jude, for example, where in the biblical text is such explicated? There cannot be any teaching that immediately binds a believer and is absent from the biblical texts, prayer, sola scriptura.

And if I understand your question correctly, not that I think you're trying to bait me, but this has something to do with Martin Luther, correct?

No, I just used Luther as a historical example.

Yeah, I would question somebody whether they were, uh, wanting to reject certain accepted books that were even accepted early on by the early Christians. Right? My whole basis for what I believe predominantly of the New Testament, anyway, is because of the authority of scripture, the apostles, and the early church fathers. These things are recognized. If someone claims 18, 19, 20 centuries, you know, later they're rejecting it, I would question whether or not they're actually sincerely being led by the Lord, and they could be going to the point of heresy.

Okay, thanks for that. Uh, okay. Uh, let me ask a question. Um, if say a New Testament author said, say Luke, in either the Gospel or the Acts, said, "And thus Jeremiah prophesied X, Y, and Z would happen." Would you agree that when he says Jeremiah prophesied, that's not simply like, uh, the text he's quoting from is like reliable historically or textually, but it's also inspired, which is a different category than being simply textually reliable and historically reliable? I mean, it would depend upon the context of what's being said, said, said, because Paul talks about the Cretans, but yet we know when he talks about the Cretans, he was using that as a historical reference, not necessarily saying that they were inspired.

So if someone says, "So-and-so prophesied,"

X, Y, and Z would happen, like say Jeremiah prophesied, not something.

Prophesied, thus saith the Lord, correct? Yeah.

Do you believe that's language of inspiration, and that the biblical author or authors believed that what they're calling from is inspired and not something like, say, a truism?

Well, if someone is saying they prophesied or thus saith the Lord, then that either is going to be a true affirmation or it's going to be something false. So, yes.

Okay. So, how do you interpret say, Jude verse 14, where Jude says Enoch prophesied, using the verb prophesy, which is the usual term for like prophesying in the Old and New Testament, but he actually attributes divine inspiration to the working one Enoch? I'm sure you're familiar with that. You said Jude 11:14.

Jude verse 4, where he says, "And Enoch prophesied."

Give me just, uh, quick second here. Jude 1:14. Sorry, I just need to read it.

It was about, it was about that these men that Enoch and the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment on all, to convict all the ungodly of their ungodly deeds. They've all done ungodly way." So what is your, so just reemphasize, what's your question again?

Do you believe that because you use the term prophesied here for the source he's quoting from, that he actually believed this was an inspired prophecy?

Well, I, I would say the answer is yes, in regards to because I don't, it wouldn't be false in this regard. Um, now, we don't actually have that book, that I'm aware of. But when Jude would be writing this, I think in this context, he would be saying this statement wasn't actually a prophecy, then it would be something that would be from the Lord.

Do you believe that Jude actually taught what the source, one Enoch, was actually inspired?

I can't say yes or no. I don't know.

Okay. Um, you might say the same thing, but let me actually quote a Protestant scholar, and you can say yes, no, given answer to this. And this is Lewis Donaldson in his commentary between one and two Peter and Jude. "Jude's treatment of one Enoch has long troubled Christian readers since he cites this book as though it had all the authority of a canonical text. In fact, one Enoch is not simply treated as having authority. It is a key text for Jude. The basic theology of one Enoch is the basic theology of Jude. Jude does not simply cite one Enoch as authoritative. Jude sees the world through the theology of one Enoch."

Yeah. Well, here, here's here's my dilemma. Like I said earlier, even though you thought it wasn't relevant. So if this be the case, and it's supposed to be in scripture, right? Then not only do I have a problem, but say yourself as a Latter-day Saint would also as well, because you don't have that scripture respectfully either in your Book of Mormon, Protestant, or anything additional, or even in the Bible. So if that being the case, we'd both be in the same problem here. I just don't see this as being a statement saying this must be an acceptable book when number one, we don't even have that book today, truly, that we know of.

No, that's fine. There's a lot more I could say. Um, back in April, I quoted you when you had Dustin McNab on, where you said that in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10, Paul is referencing a now missing epistle, uh, the original 1 Corinthians. Uh, do you still hold to that view?

That the first Corinthians that we actually don't have today?

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's, I'm open about that. Same thing with the book of Leontians. We don't have that book. Yeah.

Do you believe any of these missing books referenced in the Old and New Testament were God-breathed inspired? One minute.

Yeah.

Sorry. Say that again, please. Do you believe that any of these missing texts, like the missing 1 Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10, or like the books of Shmaya, at all, were inspired by God, or at least some of them could have been inspired by God, or used to use the technical term?

Well, I wouldn't say they weren't inspired. Um, if they were written, of course, by, uh, called an apostle, they, um, would have been inspired through that. But just because we don't have them doesn't mean that God still hasn't preserved his word, because whatever we have today, I believe God has given us what we were supposed to have.

So in your view, is it possible that there's missing God-breathed books, uh, that could have been part of the biblical canon?

Well, in the Old Testament, we have the book of Jasher, the book of War. There's different books that we don't have. Could they be discovered out there? I've openly said in the past, I'm one of the few Protestants that if they were discovered, and it was authentic, I would consider believing it. I'm open to that.

Last. Oh, thank you. Just on that, how does that, uh, sola scriptura, like historically, has been like the 66 books are formally sufficient and represents the totality of scripture. So, how do you square that with what you just said?

Well, it's simple. Like I said before, contrary to what you, you were saying about, um, the, the, the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, which was the Jewish way of talking about it, which I demonstrated some sources as well. Um, I believe that's sufficient to demonstrate the Old Testament that we have the same 39 in what you would have for your Bible. And the same thing with the 27. And so if there's any additional books that were authentically found, and then I use the word authentically found, and were demonstrated to be reliable and true, I'm willing to say it could be possible. That's all that I'm saying.

Okay. And that wraps up the cross-examination round. Thank you to both of you. We now are going to proceed to the closing statements. So, Kelly, you'll go first. Let me go ahead and get the timer ready here. You have five minutes for a closing statement, and when you begin speaking, I will go ahead and start the timer.

All right. Thank you. Go ahead. Well, thank you, everybody, for being here today. I know that many people will think that a lot of my questions early on talking about, um, both, uh, Joseph Smith translation, the Apocrypha, the Orthodox Bible, the Catholic Bible, even the reorganized Latter-day Saints. The reorganized Latter-day Saints don't accept the Pearl of Great Price as scripture. They don't accept Joseph Smith's history as scripture. Yet they accept Joseph Smith's translation of scripture. So when I brought these things together, it is talking about what is authoritative and what is the ultimate standard for doctrinal truth today. In fact, if you were to read the Joseph Smith translation, he has added many things to scripture, and that's why I thought that was relevant because it changes doctrinal things in the Bible. I thought that was relevant. Now, as I brought up, the whole debate here today is about, is scripture the standard, the ultimate standard for doctrinal truth? Me, as a Christian, born-again Christian, if I am to believe what Joseph Smith claims about additional revelation, modern revelation, prophets and apostles, extra books, there needs to be something of a standard to be able to demonstrate that. Many people throughout history have claimed to be modern prophets and apostles. My question I was asking respectfully, Rob, early on, that I believe he struggled to answer, was how do we determine what's true and what's false? What's the standard? How can we determine whether someone say like Muhammad is a true or false prophet? If we can do that, say, then the same thing must be applicable to someone like a Jim Jones, a David Koresh, an Ellen G. White, a Charles Taze Russell, a Sun Myung Moon, a Harold Camping, or also a Joseph Smith. So I believe today, what I've looked at in a very short time is to look at what scripture talks about. Be a Berean, earlier talking about Acts 17. This is the premise. The Apostle Paul is teaching. The people are listening. Did they just take Paul's word for it and say, "Yes, Paul, we believe what you say. You're the Apostle Paul." They went to scripture, what they had at the time. We see the Bible teaches us. He teaches you, you are to test all things, hold fast that which is good and true. Paul says that in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. He also says to test prophetic utterances. How do we test these things? How do we examine these things? The Bible says that we're to study to show yourself approved, a workman not ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. We're told that scripture is profitable, meaning it's, it's given for us to be able to know doctrine, truth, correction. That's my whole debate premise today. Now, if we're going to talk about specifically a canon debate, that's a different debate on exactly why specifically the 66. And that's why I said, well, if we're going to say that this is not the right way, then why does the LDS church have the same 66 books? I think that's a fair question to ask. I think it's also a fair question to ask why not the other Joseph Smith translation, why not, if he got divine revelation, why isn't that today the standard for LDS? And I also talked about the issue of priesthood authority. This is the great debate here is Mormonism, i.e., the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the one true church, as Joseph Smith claimed he claimed to be a modern-day prophet, that there was this priesthood lost, known as the Melchizedek priesthood. This is a very important claim. The Bible does not teach a Melchizedek priesthood for anybody in the Old Testament other than one individual, that's what the Bible teaches. Also, New Testament, only Jesus has this Melchizedek priesthood authority. So I'll throw this to you, if we go off the Bible, what the Bible teaches, then as Robert said, Mormonism is completely false. Why? Because only Jesus had it. Yet Joseph Smith claimed in his teachings, talking about doctrinal truth, that this was restored, that was lost with the death of the apostles. This is the great debate when you really get down to what sola scriptura teaches.

One minute.

Are the teachings of Joseph Smith true and lining up with scripture? If they're true, they should line up with what we already have. If they're additional and going beyond scripture, then you got to stay with what the Bible teaches. That's why sola scriptura is so important. You may disagree with me, but you have to ask the question, why do you believe what you believe? If you believe something is superior to the Bible for doctrinal truth, then you are making yourself, people have self-revelation, you're making yourself above the word of God, and that's dangerous. There has to be a standard to which we go to, and that's why I believe ultimately we go to the word of God. We do pray, but to know right from wrong, God has given us his word. Thank you.

Thank you, Kelly. Right on time. All right, let's go ahead and restart the timer now. Robert, uh, let me put you on the screen. And, uh, when you start, I'll start the timer.

He's muted. Oh, Robert, you're muted. Hold on one second. All right, you're, you're unmuted now. You're good to go.

Can you hear me?

Yep, I can hear you now.

Okay, good. So, I'll start now. The thesis of this debate was sola scriptura teaches that the Bible, Protestant 66 books, is the ultimate rule of faith to which all other sources of faith are to be tested or examined by to derive doctrinal truth. The burden was on the Protestant, your Kelly, to support the formal doctrine, Protestant sola scriptura, and its constitutive elements. We have no, we have heard no meaningful sound interpretation using historical grammatical exegesis on the responses offered to 2 Timothy 3:16, Acts 17:11, and other texts. Further, we have heard no response to issues such as the biblical authors themselves imputing the equal level of authority and inspiration to non-biblical sources, as seen in 2 Chronicles 29:25 and 35:4, the liturgical reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. Nor have we heard any meaningful response to Acts 15, the council of Jerusalem, and the church being a rule of faith, nor James' use of Amos 9:11-12 in Septuagint, nor any meaningful defense of the right to private interpretation, which is another constitutive aspect of sola scriptura. Now, if you're a Protestant, I would like you to ask yourself this question: Have your views been vindicated today? Are you comfortable with the defense of sola scriptura you have heard from my opponent? If you are the least bit uncomfortable with what you have heard, and the very fact that Kelly has been unable to defend the formal doctrine of Protestant sola scriptura, let me also ask you to ask yourself another question: How can Protestantism be wrong on this issue that is so easily verified and so plainly laid out by the biblical texts? The same biblical texts are at odds with a false claim that they are formally sufficient and the final authority. And if Protestantism can be so dead wrong on this issue, what about the other issues they have preached, uh, they preach as the gospel, such as the nature of atonement, the nature of justification, the security of the believer, and Christological and Trinitarian doctrines? And that's the issue. It's an issue of trust. We are expected to believe religious movement, Protestantism, which is a general category, and an individual, Kelly Powers, that are so intellectually and spiritually, biblically speaking, bankrupt, they cannot get these issues correct. Now, as I stated in my opening statement and have been vindicated throughout this debate, sola scriptura, the formal doctrine of Protestantism, which, by the way, was a topic we agreed to debate. It wasn't Mormonism, it wasn't Islam, it wasn't Roman Catholicism. It's the formal doctrine of Protestantism is a false tradition of men, one the Lord Jesus Christ would condemn, just as he condemned the Corbin rule, Matthew 15 and Mark 7. I don't believe it, and for the sake of people's eternal salvation, neither should you. Now, Kelly, in the opening, actually brought, uh, and the closing just now, brought up the term apparatus, but this kind of shows how well behind the times he truly is. For instance, with respect to apparatus, this is what a scholarly lexicon, BAX, says. Apparatus usually interpreted without a successor, which is how Kelly wants to read it. But this meaning is found nowhere else. Apparatus rather has a sense of permanent or unchangeable. And we agree Christ holds the Melchizedek priesthood permanently or unchangeably. But that doesn't mean without successors or people who can participate in it. Further, to the DDNT, this meaning does not really fit the context. We should keep to the rendering unchangeable, the more so to act as the active sense is not attested elsewhere. There's more that could be said about this, uh, and it's generally agreed also by Old Testament scholars that Psalm 110 in its original context is said about the Davidic king, not simply a then future Messiah, and they are called priests of the order of Melchizedek. Um, so Kelly's arguments about apparatus is like 100 years out of date. Since the papacy has been founded and trying to give a heap shot against Mormon priesthood, uh, claims is also disingenuous. Now, finally, as I wrap this debate up, I hope this debate will be the beginning, not the end, of one's study into this central issue, i.e., sola scriptura. Furthermore, I hope this will cause Protestants and even non-Protestants to seriously investigate the restored gospel found in quote-unquote Mormonism, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because if you're wrong about sola, what else could we be wrong about? And this is a central issue that divides Latter-day Saints from evangelicals and other Protestants of all stripes.

Of course, be sure to check out my blog and podcast, the BH Roberts Foundation/Mormonism, the Interpreter Foundation, Fair LDS, Scripture Central, and other good sources, as well as the necessary books and articles on sola scriptura. Read the best the Protestants have to offer. Read Kenneth, read Good, read Madison, but also read the other side as well. And God bless. Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming on. I appreciate the debate. Uh, we hope everyone here likes and subscribes to the channel. And you can check out, uh, both Kelly Powers and Robert Boland on their respective channels. Thank you, everyone, for coming today.

Can we make one more comment before you go? I think at this time the debate is done.